Monday, November 7, 2016

Hillary better feel that burn

How did Hillary do as Secretary of State? A Stanford-NYU study soon
after she left office concluded that from June 2004 through
mid-September 2012 U.S. drone strikes killed thousands of people in
Pakistan alone. Meanwhile, U.S.-brokered arms sales rose to an all-time
high on her watch, to $66.3 billion in 2011, more than 75% of the global
arms market, driven by major deals with autocratic Persian Gulf states.
President Obama said that the arms deals would be good for jobs and the
State Department said that in such an insecure region it would be good
for security. But what kind of security? A 2009 cable published by
WikiLeaks offers a hint. The document has Hillary admitting that Saudi
Arabia, a major U.S. arms recipient, is “the most significant source of
funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” In short, “security” means
sending more fuel to the arsonists who want to burn our house down.All of which makes it difficult to take seriously Hillary’s advocacy
of “smart power,” which simply means using every conceivable means to
advance Washington’s world hegemony. “Human rights” is a favorite theme,
even as Washington continually tramples on international law and the
sovereignty of nations to achieve it. Most alarming is Clinton’s
continual portrayal of Vladimir Putin as “Hitler,” thus dismissing any
role for genuine diplomacy. When Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 from
Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed in Southeastern Ukraine on July 17,
2014, killing all 298 people on board, Hillary immediately blamed Putin
and urged European countries to attack Russia, though there was no
evidence to back up her claim. “There should be outrage in European
capitals,” she said, adding the brain-dead Cold War adage that “the only
language [Putin] understands” is toughness. She declared that Putin was
“pushing the envelope as far as he thinks he can,” suggesting that the
Russian president had deliberately shot down the plane in order to test
Western resolve. To this day she maintains that Putin “must be
punished,” a policy that obviously runs a high risk of nuclear war. By
comparison, Donald Trump’s call for the U.S. and Russia to “get along”
and solve problems through negotiation seems stunningly brilliant.In spite of her dismal record, Hillary shamelessly affects great
concern for the fate of “women and girls” around the world, but as with
all her other high-minded rhetoric, it rings hollow. Not quite a year
before her “good friend” Madeleine Albright declared to Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes
that killing 500,000 Iraqi children via economic blockade was “worth
it” because of the perceived political gains involved, Hillary intoned
that, “It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or
drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are
girls.” Note that the motive, not the killing, is what she finds
reprehensible. If you kill girls not because they are girls, but simply
for being Iraqi, that’s OK. And you can kill hundreds of thousands of
them.

RT: The Pentagon said earlier it had no plans to
send troops into Mosul but reports in the Arabic media suggest American
boots are already on the ground. What do you think is going on?Brian Becker:
Undoubtedly there are American boots on the ground. But the point the
Pentagon is making is that there won’t be decisive numbers of boots on
the ground because they have to tell the American people and public: “We are not going to reengage in Iraq the way we did before.”
And in fact, the US cannot reengage in Iraq the way it did before
because American public opinion is so deeply and profoundly developed
against another major US war in the Middle East, no politician, whether
they are the Democrats today or the Republicans tomorrow – doesn’t
matter. There is a restraint on limiting US power. But yes, there are
5,000 US boots on the ground in Iraq and there are thousands more
private contractors. It is just they won’t be decisive.RT: The US admits it has 'advisers' assisting
Iraqi forces. Is there really a clear distinction between adviser and a
combat soldier?BB: Indeed. At the beginning of the Vietnam War, the Kennedy administration always told the American people: “Don’t worry, we only have advisers.”
But of course, if the policy fails, the advisers have to be
supplemented by other advisers and other advisers. And sooner or later,
the politicians, the generals, the admirals – they have to admit: of
course these advisers are not simply advisers - they are in fact boots
on the ground. It is really quantifiable when you have large tens of
thousands of American troops in combat and dying, then it is undeniable.
But right now we have this kind of incremental step to assuage public
opinion, to tell public opinion: “Don’t worry, all the bleeding will be done by Iraqis, it won’t be done by the Americans and don’t focus too much on Iraq.”
Because of course, the American people were decisive in forcing the US
to actually leave Iraq in large numbers. And the politicians don’t want
that to happen again. So, yes, that’s the reason they call them
‘advisers’.

Strikes in IraqAttack, bomber, fighter, remotely piloted aircraft and rocket
artillery conducted 12 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support
of Iraq’s government:-- Near Mosul, seven strikes engaged four ISIL tactical units
and three staging areas; destroyed 16 vehicles, seven mortar systems,
three weapons caches, two ISIL-held buildings, an ISIL headquarters
building and a training facility; damaged two ISIL supply routes;
degraded three ISIL tunnels; and suppressed two ISIL tactical units.-- Near Rawah, three strikes engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed 11 storage containers, a vehicle and a weapons cache.-- Near Sinjar, a strike engaged an ISIL headquarters building.

-- Near Tal Afar, a strike destroyed nine ISIL vehicles.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic
events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a
single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a
single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle
is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons
against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for
example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or
impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not
report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number
of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual
munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in
counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a
strike.

In June of 2014, the Islamic State took the city of Mosul.

Over two years later, the Iraqi government -- and 'coalition' forces -- are engaged in the liberation or 'liberation' of Mosul.

Day 21 of the operation does not find any great success. AFP notes, "Iraqi forces have already entered Mosul from the east and were moving
close to the city limits from the north on Monday but have some distance
to cover on the southern front."

Kurdish authorities have carried out a wave of attacks, demolishing
the homes and driving out hundreds of Arabs from Kirkuk, as apparent
revenge for an attack carried out by the armed group calling itself the
Islamic State (IS) on 21 October, said Amnesty International in a new
briefing published today.The briefing, ‘Where are we supposed to go?’: Destruction and forced displacement in Kirkuk,
highlights how hundreds of Sunni Arab residents, including many who
fled fighting and insecurity in nearby governorates, have been expelled
from Kirkuk. Many have been ordered to return to their places of origin
or have been confined to camps after being suspected of assisting IS to
co-ordinate the attack.

“The authorities in Kirkuk are undeniably facing a serious security
threat, but that cannot justify bulldozing people’s homes and forcibly
displacing hundreds of Arab residents. Many of those affected are people
who have already been forced to leave their homes because of the
violence engulfing the country. Now they are being forcibly displaced or
made homeless yet again,” said Lynn Maalouf, Deputy Director for
Research at Amnesty International’s Beirut regional office.In the aftermath of the surprise IS attack on eight different
locations across Kirkuk on 21 October, many said they were ordered to
leave the area and had their identity cards confiscated. Among those
affected are an estimated 250 families who had previously been displaced
from other governorates of Iraq and had sought safety and shelter in
Kirkuk.At least 190 families were also forcibly displaced by Kurdish
Peshmerga and Asayish forces from the Qotan and Qoshkaya villages in the
Dibis district of Kirkuk governorate. Most were moved to camps for
internally displaced people or sought shelter with relatives in nearby
villages. IS forces had attacked a power station in Dibis on 21 October
killing 12 guards and employees.“Forcibly evicting and displacing Sunni Arab residents of Kirkuk is
unlawful and cruel. Kurdish authorities must immediately put an end to
unlawful destruction of civilian property and forced displacement,” said
Lynn Maalouf.

“Deliberate destruction carried out without military necessity is a
war crime. Ordering the displacement of civilians – unless necessary for
their own security or for reasons of imperative military necessity –
also is a war crime.”The briefing, based on interviews with community leaders, internally
displaced people, residents, activists, and local politicians, is
supported by photographic evidence of destruction and statements from
officials.“Muhayman”, whose name has been changed to protect his identity, a
40-year-old father of 10 from a village south-west of Kirkuk, has been
forcibly displaced twice by Kurdish forces, first in 2015 and most
recently on 25 October 2016. He described to Amnesty International how
men in military uniform came to the Manshiya area of the Wahed Huzairan
neighbourhood of Kirkuk city and ordered residents to leave by morning.
Early the next day they were forcibly evicted and bulldozers demolished
homes late into the night.

“I was ordered by Peshmerga out of my own village, so I built a home
here… Now we are homeless again, and we are all sheltering with my
brother. Where are we supposed to go?”The neighbourhood, which had consisted of hundreds of houses, was
razed to the ground leaving only around 10 homes standing, he said.“Ahmed” a resident of Kirkuk city, whose home was demolished on 25
October described chaotic scenes as residents rushed to save their
possessions while tractors and bulldozers rolled into the neighbourhood.
He said one of his neighbours was so distressed he shot himself after
his home was demolished. Other residents interviewed by Amnesty
International corroborated this account.One man who fled from Diyala to Kirkuk in August 2014 with his family said security forces openly blamed him for the IS attack.“We give martyrs to fight Daesh [Arabic acronym for IS] and you bring
them here and harbour them in these houses,” they told him.

He was forced to go back to Diyala together with his relatives despite the well-documented pattern of unlawful killings and abductions of Sunni Arabs at the hands of militias there.Publicly, the Governor of Kirkuk has committed not to return
internally displaced people to areas still under IS control or where
clashes are ongoing such as Mosul and the surrounding areas.
International law and standards dictate that the return of displaced
people to their homes must be voluntary.

Amnesty International has documented the repeated forced displacement and destruction
of Arab homes and villages by Peshmerga forces, which continue to
prevent residents of Arab villages and Arab residents of mixed Arab and
Kurdish towns from returning to their homes.“Instead of flouting international law by arbitrarily uprooting
civilians from their homes, the Kurdish and Iraqi authorities should be
offering protection to those who have already been displaced or are
seeking shelter from the fighting. And they should facilitate the
voluntary and safe return of those who wish to return to their homes,”
said Lynn Maalouf.

Background

Kirkuk has been under the de facto control of the Kurdistan Regional
Government since Iraqi government forces retreated from northern Iraq in
June 2014 when IS captured large swathes of the country.

Attempts to forcibly return Sunni Arab internally displaced people
and residents pre-date the IS attack on 21 October but have intensified
since then.

Clinton is a well-documented warmonger, a hawk who has the blood of the
Honduran, Libyan and Syrian people on her hands. She has historically
backed the economic and political forces implicated in the mass
incarceration of millions, primarily Black and Brown people. She is
aligned with dismantling the federal welfare system, which ramped up
extreme poverty for poor women and women of color.

And while Trump is an undeniable affront to humanity, at least he doesn’t pretend to have morally sound principles or compose tweets like: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”The issue with this particular Clinton tweet is not the sentiment;
the issue is that Clinton herself doesn’t believe it — because if she
did, she’d be in for a whole lot of listening to the victims of
America’s violations abroad. Fortunately for the overseers of empire,
however, imperial victims are easily disappeared from the global
discourse — unless, of course, they can be portrayed as begging us to bomb them into liberation.
In her own False Choices
chapter, feminist scholar Zillah Eisenstein notes that “U.S. bombs were
wrapped in women’s rights rhetoric in the Afghan and Iraq wars” and
that “similar problems appear in Hillary’s newest drive toward yet
another war” in Syria.
Asserting that
“most feminisms in the United States and abroad have over the last three
decades become … more intersectional, actively anti-racist and
anti-militarist,” Eisenstein predicts that “Clinton as president will be
used to stop this radical evolution and disguise militarism with a
friendly white female face to read as a feminist achievement.”
Clinton can accuse Trump all she wants of going after women’s “dignity”— and she’ll be right. But she’s also doing a hell of a job of it herself.

In fact, as it turns out, there are very sound reasons to oppose
Clinton, including -- if not especially -- from a feminist perspective.Many feminists have offered extensive critiques of Hillary Clinton’s record, notably Zillah Eisentein and the authors in False Choices, the anthology
on the faux feminism of Hillary Clinton edited by Liza Featherstone.
The arguments are too numerous to repeat here, but consider one example:
Walmart.When Clinton was brought onto the board of Walmart,
the company was facing serious problems of gender discrimination. At
every level, women were paid less than men, leading to the largest sex
discrimination class-action lawsuit in history. As Featherstone
wrote, while “Clinton’s presence on the board helped to make the
company look like a better place for women, there is no evidence that
she took any measures as a board member to address Walmart’s systemic
sexism.”This example captures the essence of neoliberal feminism
— the placement of women in leadership positions of institutions
dedicated to maintaining unequal, sexist, and discriminatory practices.
While it is sold as a “trickle-down theory,” in reality, women in these
positions -- Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Carly
Fiorina -- only serve to reproduce the unjust and unequal institutions
they head.Building on the buzz of corporate feminism spurred by women like Sheryl Sandberg, author of Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead,
the Clinton campaign has masterfully deployed feminist tropes and
identity politics to promote Clinton as a feminist icon. However,
Sandberg’s claim that conditions for all women will improve as women
enter high-level positions is simply not borne out by reality.

Feminist Jill Stein is running for president on the Green Party ticket: